Iv) Domestic implementation

71. Some comments emphasised that the mandatory licensing regime established in the draft convention has the advantage that by requiring the consent of both the exporting and importing state, it ensures that all States involved will have effectively given their formal consent to the operations taking place. It would also makes it easier to determine which PMSC is operating where and when.

72. Another comment regretted that the draft text did not specify criteria to award such licenses and that the decision to award licenses would remain with States parties. This could lead to situations where licenses would be granted to companies that do not abide by international standards.

73. Others underlined that the convention could go further by proposing that a licensing system be established at the international level, administered by an inter-governmental body. This would provide a central register directly accessible rather than relying on the filings of individual State registries.

74. The idea of the creation of a special fund to compensate victims of crimes committed by PMSC personnel was welcomed by many. Some however underlined that the draft text could go further with respect to the functioning and methods of work of the Fund, including by defining who would be considered a “victim”, the amount of compensation, the amount of States’ contributions, as well as the existing correlation between the obligations of PMSCs and States to compensate victims.

75. Some States underlined that the proposed legislative regulation, licensing regime, contracting and training requirements, oversight and monitoring outlined in the draft convention may place a high implementation cost on States, which may be a disincentive to ratification. Further, some raised concern as to the limited utility in requiring States to establish domestic licensing regimes where such regimes are likely to differ significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.